WorstUsernameEver
Member
Eh Dark Souls definitely has its moments.
That's why I like it though.
His/her fault for not appraising the environment more carefully!
Eh Dark Souls definitely has its moments.
That's why I like it though.
Eh Dark Souls definitely has its moments.
Challenge is not the only thing making Dark Souls interesting (otherwise it would be a shit game) so you can find those other aspects interesting, while despising the difficulty level of the game.Shit like this is why games suck these days. If you don't want any tension or consequences for poor decisions whatsoever then there are a million other games that are willing to coddle and pamper you.
What am i reading?Yeah, I'm kind of a proponent of "down with fun" in games. Give me challenge, give me tension, give me good design. Fun is mostly just a coded term for boring and/or easy these days.
That's the keypoint, if you rage you lose.I honestly found a lot of Dark Souls' challenge to be overstated, but then again I tended to fall into a very zen state of mind while playing
I think there has been talk of DLC being possible for this game right after it came out but for some reason I'd prefer a 40$ disk new release over a 15-20$ DLC... Hopefully we'll get news aroung christmas. Hopefully I'll be knee deep in NG+ by then!New disc version might be the only option depending on how the original is set up. There are cases where adding content as DLC isn't feasible, like when it would require them to completely redo a large area to accommodate new stuff. DLC would be preferable, but my money is on a new disc release.
Eh Dark Souls definitely has its moments.
That's why I like it though.
What am i reading?
The gif is a spoiler for anyone that hasn't played it. Just sayin.
Reminds me of that 4chan pic of someone saying that "fun" is a term people throw around when they can't explain why a game is good :lol
The gif is a spoiler for anyone that hasn't played it. Just sayin.
I assume some pc players want to go in blind.
A quote from Ian Bogost in Unit Operations:What am i reading?
"Fun" IS a very useless word when it comes to explaining why a game is good. It's probably as vague as praise can get, and saying that a game is fun is pretty much the same as saying that a game is good.Reminds me of that 4chan pic of someone saying that "fun" is a term people throw around when they can't explain why a game is good :lol
Lol where is this from?
I may be autistic? I typically try to describe why things are good (or bad) versus simply calling them fun. oooo
Yeah but anyone with half a mind, who has ever conquered anything difficult in their life knows Demon/Dark Souls is 100% fair in both mechanics and scenario/level design.
A quote from Ian Bogost in Unit Operations:
"Videogames are thus subject to two equally strong forces opposing their use as tools for social commentary, social change, or other more "revolutionary" matters. On the one hand, the anthropological history of games has set the precedent for their separation from the material world. On the other hand, videogames inherit a mass-market entertainment culture whose primary purpose is the production of low-reflection, high-gloss entertainment.
Even earnest attempts by game critics and developers to overturn this received conception of videogames can be shown to reinforce rather than challenge the status quo. Raph Koster, Sony Online Entertainment Chief Creative Officer and lead designer of popular massively multiplayer online games Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies, offered a recent such effort, a unique book of cartoon sketches and semi-aphoristic insights called A Theory of Fun for Game Design. The book's title already implies Koster's adoption of "fun" as a yardstick for games, but, in an attempt fraught with hazard, he tries to recuperate the term for broader purposes than the production of anonymous desire.
In his attempt to preserve "fun" at the center of the experience of games, Koster musters loose principles from cognitive science; fun, he argues, is the sensation of "our brains feeling good." Koster opposes critiques of fun like Postman's, arguing that we "migrate" fun into contexts. In particular, the primary kind of fun that games produce comes from mystery of a task. In their representational form, what I call unit operations Koster calls "abstract models of reality." For Koster, fun is very nearly a pedagogical category, "the feedback the brain gives us when we are absorbing patterns for learning purposes."
[...]
Unfortunately, Koster's reliance on fun as a first principle for games forces him into a corner. On the one hand, he makes a convincing call for games that fulfill goals beyond mere entertainment. This call is especially constructive given Koster's relative celebrity in the game design community. On the other hand, he argues that the effect games produce in their players--all games, and all players--is "fun." This reliance on a single output for games contradicts his earlier, apparently reproachful observation that a singular expressive goal limits the medium. The reliance on fun poses a conceptual problem for Koster, who must retrofit the revolutionary potential of games to mate properly with the concept of fun that serves as his engine. [...] Koster is hard pressed to avoid the rhetoric of fun as the superficial conveyance of capital so often associated with the entertainment industry, the goal that Benjamin foresees and Postman critiques.
[...]
Koster's insistence on grouping meaningful responses of any kind under the rubric of "fun" is simply perverse."
Anyway, that's just how I tend to think of what happens when people believe that everything in a game has to be "fun."
Not gonna go into semantics, since English is not my mother language, but i guess he's talking about the chase for the "fun", resulting in games being completely chained in the same schematics.I have absolutely no idea what that post is trying to say.
If I'm not enjoying myself, I stop playing a game. I will use any tools necessary to enjoy a game. The end.
"Fun" IS a very useless word when it comes to explaining why a game is good. It's probably as vague as praise can get, and saying that a game is fun is pretty much the same as saying that a game is good.
I can't blame people for seeing it as lazy. I do.
It's been shown that there is such a thing as thinking too much and that gut reactions (aka "fun") can lead to better consumer preferences than introspection, at least by people who aren't experts. See this paper, for example."Fun" IS a very useless word when it comes to explaining why a game is good. It's probably as vague as praise can get, and saying that a game is fun is pretty much the same as saying that a game is good.
I can't blame people for seeing it as lazy. I do.
How does one define what consumer preferences are "better?" The idea that less thinking leads to better results is, while likely encouraging for people who take advantage of others (politicians, salespeople, etc.), that should be terrifying for consumers.It's been shown that there is such a thing as thinking too much and that gut reactions (aka "fun") can lead to better consumer preferences than introspection, at least by people who aren't experts. See this paper, for example.
I don't think people should stop using the word fun either, but I do think they should do some thinking and be able to be descriptive about why they're having fun. I mean, we have Twitter now for short witticisms.On the other hand I don't think we have to hold forum posts to such a high standard of writing. Gvaz explained his stance and I don't see why fun should be singled out as a word people shouldn't use when discussing games.
There's no Dark Souls OT still breathing that I know of so I'll use this thread to say :
Fuck Tomb Of Giants, Fuck Nito!
At least I found the bonefire near Patches, I missed it for longer than I'll care to admit Too far along to abandon, I'll show this game who's the boss!
.
Read the paper to see: they used a bunch of taste experts' opinions.How does one define what consumer preferences are "better?"
You're correct, people can be influenced and manipulated to believe anything. It's not just an idea though, as the study shows. It's what fancier writers than me would call the "human condition".The idea that less thinking leads to better results is, while likely encouraging for people who take advantage of others (politicians, salespeople, etc.), that should be terrifying for consumers.
I think what's rather interesting is that the decisions were not really a) hard decisions and b) were not really decisions that required much thinking on. In other words, they were not decisions whose thought had real consequences. A decision about which jam tastes better is kind of a poor metric to use against a decision such as "Which college will I go to?" The scope and importance of the questions are hugely different.Read the paper to see: they used a bunch of taste experts' opinions.
Sure, but patterns are something that are important in videogames, and even more important in design. Architecture is almost entirely about patterns, and without them we simply wouldn't have many of the modern marvels that dot our landscape today. If there's something that gives me chills in Dark Souls, it's about how considered the architecture and design of the game is, and going through it multiple times really leaves a new impression on me as I re-explore the paths to my deaths.@Cyrano: Well, i remember from my Forbidden Siren days, loving the game, but hating its challenge.
I remember that doing a level the first time was amazing, scary, engaging yadda yadda.. at the 3rd or 4th time, it was just a mechanical and methodical act, deprived of any atmosphere, and very dull (thus, only a frustrating experience).
To a degree, i think Dark Souls can have the same effect, when you have to go through Tomb of the Giants for the Xth time, just for another shot at the boss; what was a cool, mysterious dungeon, becomes a "wire framed"scheme to remember, with a pattern of methodical actions to repeat mindlessly, just to get on with the good part (namely, the part you haven't seen already).
Different players will feel very different about it, but i can understand such point of view (having experienced it with Forbidden Siren).
Right, though that brings us to another fallacy, which is that people think they're experts when they're actually notUrbanRats said:@wutwutwut: Unless i'm reading that wrong, they are implying that bad decisions come from not enough analysis, or rather, analysis with faulty parameters.
They take in good consideration the experts' opinion, but said experts are not alien beings, they are humans with a deeper capacity of analysis(due to a deeper knowledge on the subject), correct? So in the end the best possible choice is done with the deepest array of knowledge at your disposal and a thoughtful use of it for your analysis.
Right, and "which game is better" is surely closer in consequences to "which jam tastes better" than "which college will I go to".I think what's rather interesting is that the decisions were not really a) hard decisions and b) were not really decisions that required much thinking on. In other words, they were not decisions whose thought had real consequences. A decision about which jam tastes better is kind of a poor metric to use against a decision such as "Which college will I go to?" The scope and importance of the questions are hugely different.
For most people. I can see your argument though. Still, it's not as though this isn't true for other media, despite the level of reverence for these media being considerably different. This likely says something about the cultural value of videogames (real or perceived) in everyday life. It's a bit depressing that videogames are currently the biggest entertainment industry economically, yet culturally they are still largely seen as void.Right, and "which game is better" is surely closer in consequences to "which jam tastes better" than "which college will I go to".
Bed of Chaos says hi
The fact that the sidesare gone once you reach them once makes this fight kinda fair. If you had to do all of the fight in one go it would be brutal and hard as hell but like that it´s not unfair at all
The fact that the sidesare gone once you reach them once makes this fight kinda fair. If you had to do all of the fight in one go it would be brutal and hard as hell but like that it´s not unfair at all
Lucky you.People had trouble with Bed of Chaos? Never had trouble with it ever. I don't even get how you can die in that fight.
Like being punished for a lapse in attention of 5 seconds and having to do the entire dungeon over because you died to some offscreen monster dicing you up out of view, or because you missed dodging one attack of a boss.
That's just masochistic and unfun.
I wouldn't care nearly as much if the dungeon didn't reset or you were able to quicksave before a fight and just quickload back to where you were. Downtime is not a good thing in games.
Lucky you.That's how you die in that fight.There's a huge tree sweeping the ground and the ground COLLAPSES under your feet.
I beat Four Kings on my first try but I still can tell that it could be a problem for some.
Soo regarding this new content coming to consoles what would you guys prefer :
-DLC
-New disk version of the game
My money is on the new version of the game, in the goal of pulling gamers who haven't made the jump yet and it would also bring a lot a of player to the online.
Patterns as intended in my post are strictly gameplay and gamedesign patterns, of course, though it reflects on what each player can get out of a game.Sure, but patterns are something that are important in videogames, and even more important in design. Architecture is almost entirely about patterns, and without them we simply wouldn't have many of the modern marvels that dot our landscape today. If there's something that gives me chills in Dark Souls, it's about how considered the architecture and design of the game is, and going through it multiple times really leaves a new impression on me as I re-explore the paths to my deaths.
Whether someone is an "expert" (a very loose term, that is) or not, is difficlt to determine, but through analysis, you can certainly part away badly designed games from greatly designed ones, with a reasonable accuracy.Right, though that brings us to another fallacy, which is that people think they're experts when they're actually not
I know I'm not an expert at judging video games, so I try to go by my gut reaction rather than reason things out.
edit: as an example, when I made my top 10 list last year I wrote it down without thinking about it and never edited it, except (I think) to add a game I played afterwards and thought deserved to be on the list.
I'm kinda glad that you don't really have to fight them in that terrible swamp. I mean, considering it was running at 10 fps in that area, it was a nightmare to take them on.Eh Dark Souls definitely has its moments.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qc8SuNhXPgA/T4u_xa3oBKI/AAAAAAAFD6Y/zeGQk4Oo-Xg/s480/wefw.gif
There are enough instances of this being untrue that it's not advice I would at all play by. The poison dart snipers in particular come to mind... Horribly designed enemy in one of the worst designed areas of any game I've ever played.offscreen monsters rarely sneak up on you - they tend to have limited visibility so they'll only see you if you can see them. So if you clear areas as you go, you don't need to worry too much about being caught unawares. Of course if you're going through a door or doorway you should be checking blind spots
Is it confirmed that this port isn't locked at 30 fps?
Eh Dark Souls definitely has its moments.
That's why I like it though.
Just a question. I don't want this to be a shitty port.No? Who told you that, /v/?
This is the crap I'm talking about. Woops you have to start over! No thanks.
This is the crap I'm talking about. Woops you have to start over! No thanks.
This is the crap I'm talking about. Woops you have to start over! No thanks.
I have a long-winded "Why Demon's/Dark Souls aren't as hard as people make them out to be" topic idea in my head but really don't feel like putting it into words. Bottom line is, if you play carefully, observe your surrounding, and read the wiki to gain a through understanding of the combat mechanics (especially backstabs), the game's not rough at all. You will still die, but not so frequently for the most part and the bonfires (checkpoints) and shortcuts are placed such that you'll rarely have to spend more than 1-3 minutes getting back to where you were. Anyone who feels they can be patient and take their time with a game should not be discouraged by the supposed "difficulty".